Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: TRUMP 2020

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Republicans in the senate are now blocking bills to strength election security, which would 'would require campaigns to report to federal authorities any attempts by foreign entities to interfere in US elections' because, apparently, that's 'too partisan', which honestly speaks for itself.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/p...ion/index.html
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #32
    Anybody have a link to a good copy of the new presidential seal? 45 is a puppet.
    .

  3. #33
    From the creator himself, made back in 2016:



    He describes the hate mail thus far as "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
    Fucking snowflakes.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #34

  5. #35

  6. #36

  7. #37
    Trump says a lot of things, but the reality is usually something else entirely. In this respect, you two are very similar. For example, you say this is a good week for Trump because he's made headway on a minor legal issue and announced a pretend-agreement on refugees, but what's really happened is that the entire world has seen that he broke the law and the House Judiciary committee is preparing for impeachment hearings.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #38
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #39
    Not sure how anyone can still believe Trump isn't a racist after his Tweets about John Lewis and Baltimore.

    No solace.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Trump says a lot of things, but the reality is usually something else entirely. In this respect, you two are very similar. For example, you say this is a good week for Trump because he's made headway on a minor legal issue and announced a pretend-agreement on refugees, but what's really happened is that the entire world has seen that he broke the law and the House Judiciary committee is preparing for impeachment hearings.
    Want to wager on weather the House impeaches Trump?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Want to wager on weather the House impeaches Trump?
    https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/po...eachment-odds/

    Literally people who put their money where their mouth is have Trump Impeachment the LEAST likely now compared to any other point in his term. But please Aimless, continue to get your news from MSNBC.

  12. #42
    You've forgotten that polls and bookies got Trump's election odds quite wrong. And you still can't spell for shit! Want to wager on the weather?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Want to wager on weather the House impeaches Trump?
    House judiciary committee has already moved forward with this. Whether or not they actually impeach trump, they may nevertheless gather and make public more information relevant to an impeachment decision, just as they have with the findings of the Mueller investigation (which clearly describes conduct that would've gotten anyone but the president charged with obstruction of justice). The success of impeachment depends on the character of gutless Republicans legislators, but the process of laying out the case for impeachment does not. What puzzles me is that someone who purports to care about the law—and about the integrity of the republic—would not want Trump to be impeached; then again, you've always been a little pathetic.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    House judiciary committee has already moved forward with this. Whether or not they actually impeach trump, they may nevertheless gather and make public more information relevant to an impeachment decision, just as they have with the findings of the Mueller investigation (which clearly describes conduct that would've gotten anyone but the president charged with obstruction of justice). The success of impeachment depends on the character of gutless Republicans legislators, but the process of laying out the case for impeachment does not. What puzzles me is that someone who purports to care about the law—and about the integrity of the republic—would not want Trump to be impeached; then again, you've always been a little pathetic.
    There was no Russian collusion. If there was Mueller would have jumped over any hurdle to try to get Trump impeached. The entire thing is all about butt hurt Dems who are looking for any possible reason to deflect blame for Clinton's loss.

    If Democrats truly believed Trump was a Russian plant than they would want to move as swiftly as possible to remove him. They aren't doing that though. Just a slow drip of news stories about the next meaningless thing this committee or that committee does. They have a house majority, push it or shut up already.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    There was no Russian collusion.
    If you're a campaign in a US election, and you find out Russia is trying to meddle in the election in various ways and you fail to report that to law enforcement, but instead share polling data with them, what would you call that exactly?

    In any case, if Trump were to be impeached it would not be for Russian collusion as there is probably not enough evidence as of yet to prove criminal conduct ("collusion" isn't actually a legal term, what you're looking for is criminal conspiracy - they might try for 'abetting' though), but would be for various other offenses including by probably not limited to the following:

    1) Obstruction of justice
    2) Violation of the emoluments clause
    3) Campaign finance violations

    They could have had him for obstruction of justice they day he fired Comey and the emoluments thing has been there from day 1, so the idea that they're just chomping at the bit to impeach him but can't find a reason is laughable.

    Compare with what they went after Nixon with:

    Article I: Obstruction of Justice Passed 27–11 Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no, Republicans: 6 yes, 11 no
    Article II: Abuse of Power Passed 28–10 Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no, Republicans: 7 yes, 10 no
    Article III: Contempt of Congress Passed 21–17 Democrats: 19 yes, 2 no, Republicans: 2 yes, 15 no
    Article IV: Cambodia bombing Failed 12–26 Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no, Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no
    Article V: Failure to pay taxes Failed 12–26 Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no, Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no

    They might be able to get him on 2 and probably 5 as well. Maybe 3? He hasn't bombed Cambodia yet, so he's safe on that count.

    They also impeached Clinton for lying, which is basically a freebe since Trump basically never lets a day pass without lying at least once.

    They have a house majority, push it or shut up already.
    We agree on something, then.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  16. #46
    Comey told Trump three times that he wasn't under investigation, so how would firing him be obstruction?

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Comey told Trump three times that he wasn't under investigation, so how would firing him be obstruction?
    What difference is that supposed to make? You think you can try and impede an federal investigation just because it doesn't concern you personally... yet?
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    What difference is that supposed to make? You think you can try and impede an federal investigation just because it doesn't concern you personally... yet?
    Nothing was impeded. The funny part is that up until Trump fired Comey most Democrats didn't like Comey and wanted him fired too.

  19. #49
    Trump can't run on the promises he made to the American public:

    There is still no "beautiful", affordable, Universal Health Care with Patient Protections (for pre-existing conditions) or lower costs for premiums and OOP costs, or prescription drug costs.

    Absolutely nothing on Infrastructure.

    He didn't "bring back" the Coal Industry. Or the Auto Industry.

    He didn't balance the budget, but grew our debt by Trillions.

    He didn't "Drain the Swamp", but made it swampier.

    When he took the Oath of Office, he promised to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. In his inaugural speech, he promised to lead by uniting.

    He's a pathological liar.


  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nothing was impeded.
    Again, what difference is that supposed to make? You think it's ok to attempt to impede an federal investigation but fail, because you're bad at it?

    With Comey's testimony that Trump told him to let the Flynn investigation go and the various other kinds of pressure he tried to bring to bear to make the Russia matter go away, it would not take a particularly skilled prosecutor, if this were a criminal trial of some random schmuck, to join the dots.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Republicans in the senate are now blocking bills to strength election security, which would 'would require campaigns to report to federal authorities any attempts by foreign entities to interfere in US elections' because, apparently, that's 'too partisan', which honestly speaks for itself.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/p...ion/index.html
    The bill attempts to nationalize and centralize many aspects of voting under the federal government, when elections have always been state function. The federal government is managed by representatives elected by/for the states.

    The bill itself contains a lot of debatable stuff, such as mandatory paper ballots. Voting against it isn't voting "against security" any more than voting to restrict free speech after a terror attach is voting "for terrorism".

  22. #52
    McConnell and his fellow Republican senators are free to present an alternative bill or amendments to the proposed bills if those issues are the reason why they chose to obstruct efforts to shore up election security. Given their reluctance to uphold the constitution, I'm a little skeptical of their excuses.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nothing was impeded.
    The attempt to impede is obstruction, whether it's successful or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The bill attempts to nationalize and centralize many aspects of voting under the federal government, when elections have always been state function. The federal government is managed by representatives elected by/for the states.

    The bill itself contains a lot of debatable stuff, such as mandatory paper ballots. Voting against it isn't voting "against security" any more than voting to restrict free speech after a terror attach is voting "for terrorism".
    The FEC sets minimum standards, so claiming State's Right is pretty lame.

    You know damn well that many state election systems are outdated and vulnerable, that a few were successfully hacked in 2016, and that ALL our intelligence agencies warn of persistent and ongoing threats. There should be a back-up system in every state.

    If McConnell and (R) don't like paper ballots (which have led to state-specific design problems in the past, like *hanging chads*) they should offer an alternative! Instead of just blocking bills and crying about the criticisms in Trumpian style, here's their chance to put country before party....

  24. #54
    National Cathedral's Top Clergy Condemn Trump's 'Dehumanizing Words' and 'Racialized Rhetoric'


    https://time.com/5640453/national-ca...rump-rhetoric/

    The statement, released Tuesday, isn’t so much an appeal for Trump to retract or soften his statements as a call for the nation as a whole to reject them.

    It asks: “After two years of President Trump’s words and actions, when will Americans have enough?”

  25. #55
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  26. #56
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...hooting-2019-8

    Should be interesting to see what his base "chants" next time, and how he reacts.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...hooting-2019-8

    Should be interesting to see what his base "chants" next time, and how he reacts.
    NRA..NRA..NRA..NRA..
    .

  28. #58
    Trump has declared that US flags will be lowered to half-mast until 8/8, in recognition of the massacres in Texas and Ohio.

    https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/n...yton-shootings

    I don't know who's advising him, but 8/8 has significance to the White Nationalist community because it corresponds to H/H in the alphabet, or Heil Hitler. WTF?!

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    McConnell and his fellow Republican senators are free to present an alternative bill or amendments to the proposed bills if those issues are the reason why they chose to obstruct efforts to shore up election security. Given their reluctance to uphold the constitution, I'm a little skeptical of their excuses.
    "Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

    There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    "Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

    There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.
    Is "common sense" Dread-speak for "things I wish were true, but aren't supported by any evidence"?
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •